Table I.2
Four levels of difficulty for the problem solving domain

Warning View the most recent version.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please "contact us" to request a format other than those available.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

Table I.2
Four levels of difficulty for the problem solving domain
Level Problem Solving
Level 1
(0 to 250)		 Tasks in this level typically require the respondent to make simple inferences, based on limited information stemming from a familiar context. Tasks in this level are rather concrete with a limited scope of reasoning. They require the respondent to make simple connections, without having to check systematically any constraints. The respondent has to draw direct consequences, based on the information given and on his/her previous knowledge about a familiar context.
Level 2
(251 to 300)		 Tasks in this level often require the respondent to evaluate certain alternatives with regard to well-defined, transparent, explicitly stated criteria. The reasoning however may be done step by step, in a linear process, without loops or backtracking. Successful problem solving may require to combine information from different sources, as e.g. from the question section and the information section of the test booklet.
Level 3
(301 to 350)		 Some tasks in this level require the respondent to order several objects according to given criteria. Other tasks require him/her to determine a sequence of actions/events or to construct a solution by taking non-transparent or multiple interdependent constraints into account. The reasoning process goes back and forth in a non-linear manner, requiring a good deal of self-regulation. At this level respondents often have to cope with multi-dimensional or ill-defined goals.
Level 4
(351 to 500)		 Items in this level require the respondent to judge the completeness, consistency and/or dependency among multiple criteria. In many cases, he/she has to explain how the solution was reached and why it is correct. The respondent has to reason from a meta-perspective, taking into account an entire system of problem solving states and possible solutions. Often the criteria and the goals have to be inferred from the given information before actually starting the solution process.
Date modified: